Like many others, I changed my Facebook photo in solidarity with France (right).
Surprisingly, questions are being asked why the world easily aligns with the French in such cases, when it has not done so for Nigeria, over Boko Haram.
As often is the case, many have argued that although Britain and America have the ability to wipe out Boko Haram, they have failed to do so because of what is essentially, a regional consideration. In order words Nigeria doesn't matter as much to them.
While it is tempting to ignore these insinuations and maintain a degree of silence, after all, they are arguably, to all intents and purposes, mere conjectures, it does seem in order if one made a different contribution.
In truth, no one may say, with certainty, what the determining factors for high level governmental decisions are - unless they have been privileged to be part of the relevant committee to recommend it. But given what we know, I have had to argue that our disposition to issues that concern us, also affects other people's reaction to our predicament.
Inferentially, a leader's initial reaction to acts of terror against his people, affects his capacity to attract outside help. It is a simple matter of syllogy - if you hate a certain pain so much, you are almost certain to be willing to accept help when offered.
Time and time again, France, and indeed, all civilized nations have shown their disdain for any form of acts of terror - irrespective of whether the individual is a citizen or not. Terror is terror, and as very often seen, it hardly does a victim any good.
Now, in the case of Boko Haram, one must ask - did the Nigerian government show immediate reaction and determination to counter it?
I remember watching a video of a
BBC interview in which former President Jonathan Goodluck was almost loosing his temper during an interview, when the journalist wondered why Nigeria had not showed as much seriousness in fighting back until the last months of his administration.
His response included that the country had no weapons to fight, having not fought a major war since the Nigerian civil war ended in 1970. So, weapons had to be ordered, and allowed to arrive before something can be done.
Yet, despite not having fought a major war, Nigeria has had to deal with several home grown rebel movements which tasked its armed forces on law enforcement. Nigerian forces have also been involved in peace keeping missions abroad over the years, including Somalia, Sierra Leone, Liberia.
In Nigeria, the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) is a `secessionist group', the Oodua People's Congress (OPC) is `militant group' while (Boko Haram), took violence to a new level, and made it to the terror list. But violence is violence.
Together with several other groups, these rebels have unleashed many years of abductions, killings, blackmail as well as disruption to affairs of civil society.
President Goodluck told his interviewer that "...no President would be happy to be loosing citizens". Perhaps so. But would these happen in France, Britain or Germany, and not be tackled decisively?
As has been demonstrated time and time again, France, and indeed Britain and America do not tolerate any form of terrorist attack. For a grievance to be entertained, you are encouraged to channel it through the courts - and accept the verdict, by which the government also pledges to abide.
No form of violence is entertained, and whether it is home grown or foreign import, is immaterial. Therein lies the difference.
In 2015 Britain, culprits of the August 2011 riots are still being tracked and whenever any is caught, he or she will still face the law accordingly.
Doesn't one wise saying insist that "as you make your bed, so you will lie on it" Let's `make our bed' rather than argue over those who have made their's.
